It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran accepted new Russian offer

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
my remarks were solely this "The US IS the only nation to ever have N-U-K-E-D a vastly civilian population" which was the topic or so i thought...nukes


It was the way you said it, inferring that the US was in the wrong to use it and that they committed a unique crime against humanity.




posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
"The US IS the only nation to ever have N-U-K-E-D a vastly civilian population" which was the topic or so i thought...nukes


I think the topic, is actually Iran. And in that case, the above statement, that the U.S. was the only nation to have used nukes, doesn't really apply to this situation. I don't think we had a choice back then, and we never called for Japan to be wiped off the map.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by alphabetaone
my remarks were solely this "The US IS the only nation to ever have N-U-K-E-D a vastly civilian population" which was the topic or so i thought...nukes


It was the way you said it, inferring that the US was in the wrong to use it and that they committed a unique crime against humanity.


My inflection was only matter-of-fact...I was only replying to you accusing someone of being ignorant because they had stated that the US was the only nation to ever nuke someone, when in fact he was right, so i didnt see where he was ignorant.... let's leave it at that



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by alphabetaone
My inflection was only matter-of-fact...I was only replying to you accusing someone of being ignorant because they had stated that the US was the only nation to ever nuke someone, when in fact he was right, so i didnt see where he was ignorant.... let's leave it at that


OK, lets sort this out once and for all. This is the quote I was responding to :


and you say the US is the only country that should have a Nuclear arsenal... may I remind you that the US is the only country that has been irresponsible enough to actually use them?

No other country in the world has ever nuked a civilian population except fot the US.


^^^ that is an ignorant statement, I take it you disagree.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
OK, lets sort this out once and for all. This is the quote I was responding to :


and you say the US is the only country that should have a Nuclear arsenal... may I remind you that the US is the only country that has been irresponsible enough to actually use them?

No other country in the world has ever nuked a civilian population except fot the US.


^^^ that is an ignorant statement, I take it you disagree.


I disagree only to the extent that neither you nor I can qualify what the outcome or the timeline might have been if some alternate method were used as opposed to the atomic bomb.
We can SPECULATE all we want to on exactly how much sooner dropping the atomic bomb on the 2 cities brought an expedited close to WWII, but can either of us present any fact on that? I would say no. That being said, he isnt ignorant for his belief; he believes or may believe that some other mechanism by which to bring WWII to end may have had the same results. And that would be plausible, who knows, we're bound by what history has already played out. That doesnt make him ignorant, only opinionated, as you yourself are.
With respect to his statement on the US being the only country to have dropped an atomic bomb on anyone ever, is also factually on the money. He is not ignorant for that either. So, yes, to those degrees, I disagree with you that anything he said was ignorant.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   


No other country in the world has ever nuked a civilian population except fot the US.


Though this may be factual, it is also mainly blatantly and maliciously used as a morale high ground argument.






seekerof



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Though this may be factual, it is also mainly blatantly and maliciously used as a morale high ground argument.


My point exactly. If we hadn't been the first to obtain that technology, then it would be very likely that one wouldn't be able to say the "only" time. Had Japan gotten it first, well.....



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof


No other country in the world has ever nuked a civilian population except fot the US.


Though this may be factual, it is also mainly blatantly and maliciously used as a morale high ground argument.






seekerof


Blatantly, yes... maliciously?? If you have the moral high ground to stand on then its not malicious lol
Besides, being either blatantly OR maliciously on moral high ground still does not equate ignorant, which was all i was replying to.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
It was ignorant for the poster to say we were "irresponsible" for using them. It would have been irresponsible to let that war drag on, while Japan purposely slaughtered, with gruesome WMD's, hundreds of thousands more civilians than those two bombs did. Japan was pure evil, and I find it very hard to think that we could have talked them out of that.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I've no sympathy for japan being nuked they did deserve it at the time but i think the targets could have been better chosen rather than mostly civilian areas's.

I'm suprised my earlier post didn't get me flamed the Americans on this site seem to be a reasonable bunch and didn't react at all like i was expecting which is nice to see.

As far as I'm aware Iran have alway's insisted their nuclear program is completely peacefull and I have seen no evidence to the contrary as yet until I do I'm afraid I just don't buy the American arguement.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Teknikal
I'm suprised my earlier post didn't get me flamed the Americans on this site seem to be a reasonable bunch and didn't react at all like i was expecting which is nice to see.


You didn't say anything that upset me, in fact you made it clear it's my government you disagree with, I disagree with them too.



As far as I'm aware Iran have alway's insisted their nuclear program is completely peacefull and I have seen no evidence to the contrary as yet until I do I'm afraid I just don't buy the American arguement.


I think we'll have to wait a bit longer and see what comes of all this. I hope Iran's intent is peaceful, but we must be vigilant. I just don't want to see anymore nuclear powder kegs in this world, look what happened with India and Pakistan, it came pretty close. I don't think having Iran and Israel with nukes pointed at each other is a good way to achieve a more peaceful Earth. I know many will say Bush is cornering everybody to pursue nukes, but the reality is by the time they have their deterrent against Bush, he will no longer be president. Then well just have a world with more nuclear weapons, and that would suck, IMO.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join